Holism vs. Reductionism
Holism vs. Reductionism
Scholars have argued over the implementation of holism or reductionist when analyzing phenomena or behaviors. The paper reviews the holism approach and its emphasis on the whole rather than parts. Focus is also on reductionism and its emphasis on parts that make up the whole. Reductionist approaches such as the biological and behaviorist approach are analyzed. Holistic approaches such as Gestalt and the humanistic approach are also reviewed. Overall, the arguments for and against either holism or reductionism is never ending. Both approaches have varies spheres in which breakdown or analysis as a whole matter hence the persistent arguments on which approach suffices in the current world.
HOLISM V. REDUCTIONISM
The holism and reductionism approach simply refers to a discussion on whether human behavior can simply be understood by breaking into smaller significant parts (reductionism) or whether it can be understood by analyzing it as a whole (holism). The paper reviews the two behavioral phenomena with reference to thinking, the approaches that rely on either of the two phenomena and the classification. The paper will review how the reductionist thinking thrives in the world today over holism. The paper shall review reductionist thinking in relation to advancements in technology and sciences. The paper shall also indicate why holism line of thinking is risky for the existence of the society today (Atkinson, & Wells, 2000: p22). The paper shall also review the various approaches applies in reductionist and holism. Each of the approach will critically be analyzed for understanding. Overall the debate over holism and reductionism in terms of understating human behavior persists.
Holism v. Reductionism
Reductionism is a belief that behavior can be explained with ease by breaking it down into smaller components. Reductionist believes that even though the whole constitutes of different parts, one can put back the parts so as to make the whole. The simple aspects of one’s life are the basis in which the complex aspects are made. Understanding different situations thus require one to look closely at the simplest form of that behavior. It is only by looking at something/behavior at its simplest form that one would understand how it works. The reductionist argument is based on the parsimony; a scientific assumption that state that complex phenomena can be explained by understanding the simplest underlying principles. In fields such as psychology, application of measures such as behaviorism and cognitive testing lie on a reductionist foundation.A complex behavior that a patient exhibits can thus be easily understood by breaking it down into simple variables sets which a psychologist can use to establish the cause and effect of the behaviors (Cheung, 2008; p3). Subsequently, this strategy results to a better understanding of behavior exhibited by a patient and thus effective solutions.
Notable behaviorists like Skinner argue that an individual’s behavior is as a result of a previous learning experience. An encounter to stimuli and the responses that one exhibits determine behaviors. Critics argue that the reductionist approach is not reliable in explaining behavior as it fails to identify the reason behind various behaviors. A reductionist approach to understanding complex issues fails to answer the question; Why? Failing to determine why a situation is as it manifests itself means that reductionist fail to address the bigger issue (Hatcher, & Tofts, 2004; p3-4). Alternatively, critics suggest the holistic approach in understanding different situations. Holism emphasizes that understanding of situations/behaviors lie on looking on the whole rather than the parts. Unlike the reductionist approach, holism involves studying the whole. Holism believes that it is impossible to recreate a while by integrating the parts separately analyzed.
The holism approach suggests that they are different level of explaining a phenomenon (Atkinson, & Wells, 2000; p14). At each level, there are unique properties that stand out. The humanistic approach adopts holism and denounces the reductionist approach to looking at phenomena simple sets of elements. Humanist views the self as the vital quality of human beings. The self makes man what he is and different him from psychology and natural science.Holism also emphasizes on focuses on history so as to comprehend the present and future. Holism believes that current occurrences/behaviors are shaped by occurrences in the past. It is therefore, vital to look into the past as the past is part of the holistic state. This is an opinion that the reductionist wholly disregard. The reductionists argue that the history and past of a system is irrelevant and does not matter as understanding the present. Reductionists argue that as the essential factors to have is the current status of a system. With the current status, one can easily understand a phenomenon.
Approaches in Reductionism and Holism
There are numerous approaches that are used in psychology with regards to reductionism and holism. Reductionist Approaches
The first is the biological approach where physiological reductionism is used to explain behavior. The second is the behaviorist approach which also relies on reductionism to understand different phenomena. Terminologies such as stimulus and response are used to understand the concept of behavior. While using these terminologies, a physiologist uses the environmental reductionism approach to explain behavior (McLEod, 2008). Environmental reductionist uses environmental factors to understand behavior. The third is cognitive approach also relies on the principle of reductionism. Information processing approaches using simple component as in a machine to describe and explain behavior.
Holism Approaches
The humanistic approach emphasizes on use of holism and ignoring the reductionist approach. Humanists believe that it is only through holism that one can fully comprehend mind and behavior. Humanists also argue that analyzing personality as single part is disrespectful to the human spirit. The second approach in holism is the gestalt approach. The gestalt approach looks at the analysis of behavior as whole rather than parts (McLEod, 2008). Gestalt emphasizes on looking at unified wholes, complete structures and totalities when studying human behavior. One classification of Gestalt approach is insight learning. Insight learning involves learning a new behavior through insight. It involves problem solving by connecting different parts to make a whole thus new meaning.
Reductionist v Holism Thinking
In the world today, the reductionist form of thinking dominates over the holistic from of thinking. Proponents of reductionism argue that without reductionism advancement such as technology and science would not have been possible. The world today, exists through putting different aspects/spheres together to make sense. Advancements in technology for instance, require that researchers look at existing parts and determine ways of improving them (Chan, 2003: p215). Understanding how to enhance the current technology thus involves looking at existing technology in parts and determining ways to modify the parts and make the technology better. Inventions that are coming up are as a result of reductionism in which researchers enhance different parts. Whereas reductionist thinking is based on facts, the holistic way of thinking is largely influenced by factors such as love compassion, empathy and cooperation.
Conclusion
The argument over holism vs. reductionism seems unending as proponents and opponents of the two sides give their validations. Reductionism involves explaining a behavior or phenomenon by breaking it into smaller parts. The parts are then distinctly analyzed to enhance understanding the behavior/phenomenon. Psychologists argue that the only way to understand human behavior is by reducing the behavior into its simplest form. Holism, on the other hand, refutes a breakdown on phenomena into parts for purposes of analysis. Proponents of holism argue that a phenomena/behavior only makes sense if analyzed as a whole.
References
Atkinson, K. & Wells, C. (2000). Creative therapies. Nelson Thomes publishers. P10-23
Chan, M. (2003). Beyond determinism and reductionism.AFT press P211-224
Cheung, M. (2008). The reductionist-holistic worldview dilemma. MAI Review. Vol. 3(5); 1-7
Hatcher, M. & Tofts, C. (2004). Reductionism is not functional. Hewlett-Packard Company; p2-7
McLEod, S. (2008). Reductionism and holism in psychology. Retrieved on 1st October 2012 from http://www.simplypsychology.org/reductionism-holism.html
Is this your assignment or some part of it?
We can do it for you! Click to Order!
